This indicated to me that kbertsche was saying nano had some different definitions for these concepts that would negate QFT, specifically a quantum fluctuation, as a possible first cause that had nothing before it yet could explain the existence of this universe.

If this was his intent then I was hoping he or nano would show me what the differences are between the QFT and these "philosophical" definitions of "cause" and "nothing". That would require some definitions that would preclude QFT, what philosophy was used to arrive at these definitions as well as why that choice of philosophy among the various others.

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?

His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger

I think talking of logic as "existing" is extremely tendentious; unless one means as a concept or a subject of study, in which case its existence is not at all necessary.

I was asking the O.P. if he thought it necessary. I personally think it requires a somethingness reality, and therefore doesn't qualify as an uncaused first cause. Statements and their makers are things, which is why the one you used further up the thread is inherently false because it can only exist in a world where it's false. A bit like "Statements are never made".

In using logic in discussing the O.P., we may all be unwittingly treating the existence of some things as necessary.

BTW, we can't strictly prove a claim like "unicorns exist nowhere", but "nothingness exists nowhere" is necessarily true, assuming that our type of reality is a necessary thing, and therefore a place is necessarily something.

Logic applies to the statements we make. Whether it "exists" in any particular situation seems a pointless and trivial question. The question is whether it applies to the statements we make about that situation - and I do not see a good reason why it would not.

Nano is perhaps a bit unclear in the OP. His first step is to consider "an empty universe"; does this mean "nothing at all" (i.e. nothing in the philosophical sense) or "no mass-energy, but quantum field theory and the fabric of space-time"?

His second step is to consider "the first thing" that exists in this "empty universe", which "could be a particle, a force, an underlying structure/law of the universe or even God." I read this as including QFT and the fabric of the universe, so I conclude that his starting point must be "nothing at all"; no QFT, no space-time.

Yes, you read me correctly. I was trying to keep the proof simple. I like to think of it as the null set.

You're assuming the "laws of physics" are some set of physical-like things that need to come into existence before QFT can operate. But the laws of physics are our mathematical models of the way we see the universe operate.

More accurately I assume the laws are hard-codes into the underlying fabric of the universe.

AZPaul3 writes:

At present we have no evident explanations of what preceded the universe so it is impossible to tell what processes there were or were not. But to explain this universe, as per your syllogism, all it would take is the operations of QFT or some QFT-like process.

Where did the quantum fluctuation come from? Perhaps it was the first thing in the universe. As such, it has no cause and cannot be explained. Therefore the universe cannot be explained.

It appears to me that the OP is inherently defining explanation to mean 'describe how something results from its ultimate cause.'

I accept and have stated that 2nd and greater things can be explained by the things that came before. My specific assertion is that the origin of the universe cannot be explained. I could have been more clear about that in my proof.